>In my armchair, I enjoy reading lens tests and am grateful for them,
>because I will never do them myself. In the field I forget about them,
>except perhaps to try to recall the "sweet stops" (about which there have
>not really been many surprises in Gary's tests, I think; I rarely shoot
>lenses wide open, so I don't pay much attention to how well they hold up on
>the fat end). I have never been sorry that I have owned or made certain
>shots with my zooms. There are many shots I would not have gotten at all
>without them.
To me, knowing where the "sweet stops" are in each of my lenses is
extremely important. To know that my 35/shift is better at F11 than at
either F8 or F16 is critical when I am doing a shot that demands absolute
perfection. Otherwise, yes, I agree that the information is relatively
benign in normal usage as it could stand in the way of getting the shot.
Of course, these tests are only valid for a given distance. The distortion
and edge-to-edge sharpness are a function of film-lens-subject distance
too. The reality is that these numbers are a "starting point" and a common
reference number, but are not carved in stone for all conditions and
distances. What about color of the lights? Will these numbers hold true
under the full spectrul of visable light?
The fact is, we each need to test our lenses under the conditions (or
similar to) that we may be called upon to capture that "perfect" shot. I
know from experience and testing that *my* 100/2.8 yields phenominal
sharpness at F16 and I strive to stop it down all the way whenever
possible. But is that the case under all conditions? No way! The
sharpness with my lens varies with distance, but through experience I
happen to know just what I can get away with. The fact that the edges of
the image fall apart at about 8 feet focus distance at 5.6 of mine makes it
an ideal portrait lens and stopped down makes it a fantastic landscape
lens, but the numbers don't always reflect this.
Am I disagreeing with Gary's testing? NO WAY! But I do know that no two
lenses will ever test out exactly the same--nor should they! Heresy you
say? No, reality. This is part of what makes every photograph by every
photographer unique. Who knows, I might have an element out of alignment
that IMPROVED the lens for a given picture. Maybe fungus is a good thing
for a portrait lens...
Ken (dodging lens-caps) Norton
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography
image66@xxxxxxx
(515) 791-2306
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|